The scale of administrative fines
The official sources consulted state precise amounts. They vary with the nature and repetition of the breach.
Failure to observe the duties on the posting declaration and on producing the documents required attracts an administrative fine of between one thousand and five thousand euros per employee posted.
On repetition within two years of notification of the first fine, the amount is between two thousand and ten thousand euros per employee.
The total fine may not exceed fifty thousand euros.
The "per employee posted" basis is decisive: a team of several undeclared people multiplies the fine accordingly, up to the cap.
The director of the competent administration takes account of the circumstances, the seriousness of the breach and the firm's conduct in setting the amount.
| Penalty | What it targets | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative fine | The breach recorded | Financial |
| Stop notice | Continuation of the works | Immediate halt |
| Client's liability | The contractual chain | Burden passed up the chain |
The stop-work order
This is the costliest penalty, and it is not measured in euros. It consists in stopping the works.
Serious breaches of certain provisions of the labour code are penalised by a stop-work order made by the director of the competent administration.
An employer who fails to pay a fine within the period set may also be penalised by a stop-work order.
The effect on site is immediate: work halts, teams are disrupted, the programme slips, and contractual consequences follow towards the client.
The cost of a stoppage therefore far exceeds that of the fine, and it is borne without being insurable.
That is why the risk of penalty is not to be reasoned as a probable cost, but as a risk of interruption.
The duties bearing on the client
A major point, often overlooked by clients. Liability can run back up to the client.
Professional sources indicate that a client or principal contracting with a foreign provider posting employees is subject to precise duties, backed by penalties.
A duty to verify: to satisfy itself that the foreign provider has properly declared the posting and appointed a contact person.
A duty to require action: where it is informed in writing of a breach, notably non-payment of wages due to posted employees.
Failure to observe those duties exposes the client to the administrative fine, according to the same sources.
In other words: the risk does not stop at the posting firm. It travels up the contractual chain.
The duty to verify in subcontracting
It completes the framework covered in the article on subcontracting. The checks to carry out are listed there.
Professional sources indicate that a provider using a subcontractor must verify that the subcontractor has completed the posting formalities.
That verification must be capable of proof at the latest on the first day work begins.
If the provider finds that the declaration has not been made, a duty to require action applies.
Joint liability for wages and social contributions is also mentioned by those sources, which shifts the risk from administrative to financial ground.
The costliest effect
Three consequences go beyond the fine.
Interruption of the works, with knock-on effects on other packages.
Contractual exposure towards the client, delays resulting from an administrative failing not being excusable.
The effect on the commercial relationship, a client exposed by its provider generally not returning.
These three consequences are neither quantifiable in advance nor insurable, unlike the fine.
What this means for a professional
Four rules.
Treat the declaration as a condition of starting, not as an administrative formality.
Verify your subcontractor's formalities before the first day of work, and keep proof of that verification.
Tell the client what verifications you have carried out, its own exposure depending on them.
Reason in terms of interruption risk, not fine cost, the stoppage being the real penalty.
This article reflects the rules at the date of checking and serves professional orientation. It does not constitute legal advice.